The Supreme Court on Friday stated that Kannada film actor Darshan, an accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, is at liberty to approach the court for bail if there is no substantial progress in the trial within the next year. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi directed the Karnataka government to ensure that 60 witnesses are examined within one year. The court emphasized that the trial court should hear the case without adjournments on flimsy grounds.
Background of the Case
On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to Darshan and other accused by the Karnataka High Court on December 13, 2024. The apex court had warned against providing five-star treatment to undertrial prisoners. In his bail petition, Darshan had complained about being denied basic amenities. With only 10 out of 272 witnesses examined so far, he argued that prolonged incarceration violated Article 21 of the Constitution. He also claimed that he was not allowed to receive or buy food, clothing, and bedding from private sources, as permitted under the Karnataka Prison Act, 1963.
Court's Observations
After the Supreme Court sought a report from the state on May 4, 2025, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Karnataka, submitted that Darshan was provided all amenities due to an undertrial prisoner. However, the bench noted that the trial progress was "extremely slow" and that at the current pace, it would take considerable time to examine 60 witnesses.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Darshan, highlighted that in the seven months after his bail was cancelled, only 10 witnesses had been examined out of 272. He claimed that the actor was kept in a quarantine cell and not allowed to interact with other inmates, while pressing for bail. The top court responded that it was not yet time to consider the bail application as "not much time" had passed. Luthra clarified that Darshan's cell was a quarantine cell during the pandemic and that he was allowed to talk to others.
Slow Trial Progress
Regarding the slow trial, the court was informed that the prosecution planned to examine 60 witnesses within a year. When the court noted that the trial judge was holding additional charge, which was slowing progress, Luthra countered that the defence was taking more time for cross-examination. The Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to ensure the examination of 60 witnesses within one year, failing which Darshan could approach the court for bail.
